Abstract

Claims concerning what is or is not possible abound in contemporary philosophy. The epistemology of such claims, however, remains largely unexplored. Anything imaginable is possible, we are told, with the proviso that imagination be governed by logic. Many who defend this methodology argue that logic frees us from recourse to some mysterious a priori faculty of intuition. Anything is possible so long as it does not contain a contradiction—and we don’t need intuition to tell us what is contradictory, just logic. Logic is thus supposed to provide us with a non-mysterious, intuition-free, modal epistemology. The purpose of this paper is to argue that logic does not deliver on this promise. The argument proceeds along two fronts. First, I argue that logic is not sufficient for the task. Not only are there consistent but impossible propositions, there are even inconsistent propositions that are possible. Second, and more fundamentally, I question the epistemic independence of appeals to logical consistency. I will argue that in judging a proposition to be consistent we rely upon our intuitions concerning what is possible. In other words, our modal beliefs undergird our judgments about consistency and not vice-versa.